This is more in the form of a question/request.... When a new scenario in a campaign is started, I ALWAYS have to move the transport trucks to the map's lower edge or into heavy forest to keep them from getting blown to pieces.

In the Dynamic Campaigns, you do have the Set-Up Mode where you can move your trucks to the map edge prior to the AI having a chance to shoot at them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deputy I suspect that during the war, transport trucks moved troops up to the front lines and then LEFT THE AREA. Especially if an attack or advance was anticipated. Having all those transport vehicles up front just provides a target-rich environment for the AI to take pot shots at. The ONLY time I could MAYBE see having transport up close to the front lines would be if your mission was to move to an exit hex. And even then, they should be out of sight of the enemy....not parked right out in the open. This situation is bad at battalion level, but becomes an agony at division and higher levels. Also, I doubt very much that HQ units parked right out in the open. But this also happen frequently. If trucks MUST be present at the beginning of a campaign scenario, wouldn't it be better to either hide them behind mountains or trees, or put them at the lowest edge of the map so that they could be removed as a target?

If it is a Linked Campaign, the designer must have a reason for including the trucks. Or maybe the designer added for the simple reason they were in the OOB to use.

If it is a Dynamic Campaign, the computer places them randomly, after which you can move the units to where you wish them to be in the Set Up Mode.

Soviet Ost truppen were recruited from POW camps for the most part - youre looking at around 200 ethnic groups each with it's own dialect. Germans realized the training problems immediately and left the leadership in the hands of the ethnic NCO's. One of the key elements was trying to train russians in the operation of the complex German weapons. It was decided to leave the Russians with weapons they were already familiar with thru their Red Army training. Infantry weapons, Machine guns, infantry support weapons, etc.. were all Russian. Please take the situation in historical context and realise the Germans main problem wasn't manpower - It was training manpower. Ther Russian troops with full reserve training ( Russians had a military draft ), military training and combat experience compared to german civilian drafts and volksdeutsch of various ages and occupations with rudimentary training. In most instances the Russian troops performed as well as could be expected but the germans payed the ultimate price in august 1944 and the concept of Ostbattalions was pretty much rethought as were the methods of employment - this led to more large ost formations and placed the combat elements into the divisional rear services rather than line battalions. for the core campaigns however - november 43 to jan 45. the Ost battalions had a significant role in the German military effort - comprising 1/3 of the rifle strength of nearly every infantry division and sustaining proportionate losses. Im not sure how the disruption is determined ingame - if the unit being targeted has less of a % of being disrupted if its elite than another unit thats green. But that would really help to clarify the different combat values. An Ost unit was very unlikely to surrender out of hand and many fought desperately till wars end. However when an Ost unit did surrender it tended to do so as a complete unit.

In the Dynamic Campaigns, you do have the Set-Up Mode where you can move your trucks to the map edge prior to the AI having a chance to shoot at them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deputy I suspect that during the war, transport trucks moved troops up to the front lines and then LEFT THE AREA. Especially if an attack or advance was anticipated. Having all those transport vehicles up front just provides a target-rich environment for the AI to take pot shots at. The ONLY time I could MAYBE see having transport up close to the front lines would be if your mission was to move to an exit hex. And even then, they should be out of sight of the enemy....not parked right out in the open. This situation is bad at battalion level, but becomes an agony at division and higher levels. Also, I doubt very much that HQ units parked right out in the open. But this also happen frequently. If trucks MUST be present at the beginning of a campaign scenario, wouldn't it be better to either hide them behind mountains or trees, or put them at the lowest edge of the map so that they could be removed as a target?

If it is a Linked Campaign, the designer must have a reason for including the trucks. Or maybe the designer added for the simple reason they were in the OOB to use.

If it is a Dynamic Campaign, the computer places them randomly, after which you can move the units to where you wish them to be in the Set Up Mode.

Jason Petho

Jason: I am talking ONLY about the Dynamic Campaigns...I am sorry I wasn't more specific. Yes....the computer seems to put all the truck transport right up next to the infantry units and in the line of tank and cannon fire. Isn't there any way to have the AI place the truck (and headquarter) units further back or even at the bottom edge of the screen? It doesn't seem like random placement right now as they are ALWAYS right up front. I know in setup mode these untis can all be moved, but it turns intoa real pain when you are talking about division or larger units and all those trucks. I understand about user-designed scenarios and where the trucks might be placed there. If nothing can be done about it I understad. Just something that I would like to see changed if possible.

ive been working on engineers that wont be done till tonite but ill run thru ost truppen later tonite when im done Basically your whole approach to engineers is wrong - trying to get a unit to build another unit doesnt work. basically each river hex should already have a pontoon bridge on it - as a hidden terrain feature - I know you can turn unit display on and off and in the design mode you can do the same with terrain features. Basically you add the pontoon ( hidden ) as an integral part of the river hex. All engineers are amphibious due to the assault boats that are an integral part of their unit train. if an engineer enters a river hexside the function needs to be the engineer unit goes invisible and the pontoon terrain feature appears. adjusting the stacking limits for the hex makes certain that heavier units cant cross the pontoons.

for that feature your engineer truck works just fine unload the truck at the waters edge and create a pontoon ferry that will be able to load heavier units and move them across the water. The only problem is the possibility of cheating - the permanent pontoons allow movement over water - so thatll have to be worked out. youll be able to rapidly move trucks and infantry across the water and slowly ferry armor over... and you can scrap those silly assault assault boats that flood the river crossing scenarios.

it would rock if the units were assigned on a random basis so the player doesnt know how they act till they start fighting. letting him pick is too easy and takes the punch out of "unpredicteable" =) getting stuck with a flaky unit for a whole campaign would be intetresting to say the least =) - did you adjust the assault values ?

In the Dynamic Campaigns, you do have the Set-Up Mode where you can move your trucks to the map edge prior to the AI having a chance to shoot at them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deputy I suspect that during the war, transport trucks moved troops up to the front lines and then LEFT THE AREA. Especially if an attack or advance was anticipated. Having all those transport vehicles up front just provides a target-rich environment for the AI to take pot shots at. The ONLY time I could MAYBE see having transport up close to the front lines would be if your mission was to move to an exit hex. And even then, they should be out of sight of the enemy....not parked right out in the open. This situation is bad at battalion level, but becomes an agony at division and higher levels. Also, I doubt very much that HQ units parked right out in the open. But this also happen frequently. If trucks MUST be present at the beginning of a campaign scenario, wouldn't it be better to either hide them behind mountains or trees, or put them at the lowest edge of the map so that they could be removed as a target?

If it is a Linked Campaign, the designer must have a reason for including the trucks. Or maybe the designer added for the simple reason they were in the OOB to use.

If it is a Dynamic Campaign, the computer places them randomly, after which you can move the units to where you wish them to be in the Set Up Mode.

Jason Petho

Jason: I am talking ONLY about the Dynamic Campaigns...I am sorry I wasn't more specific. Yes....the computer seems to put all the truck transport right up next to the infantry units and in the line of tank and cannon fire. Isn't there any way to have the AI place the truck (and headquarter) units further back or even at the bottom edge of the screen? It doesn't seem like random placement right now as they are ALWAYS right up front. I know in setup mode these untis can all be moved, but it turns intoa real pain when you are talking about division or larger units and all those trucks. I understand about user-designed scenarios and where the trucks might be placed there. If nothing can be done about it I understad. Just something that I would like to see changed if possible.

Dep

an option to remove transport prior to setup would rock in the campaign ( soft only , not the sdkz, you may want to move some stuff ) going further on that note being able to remove entire units from the setup with a click would really rock. ( they could revert to the reinforcement schedule )

an option to remove transport prior to setup would rock in the campaign ( soft only , not the sdkz, you may want to move some stuff ) going further on that note being able to remove entire units from the setup with a click would really rock. ( they could revert to the reinforcement schedule )

ive been working on engineers that wont be done till tonite but ill run thru ost truppen later tonite when im done Basically your whole approach to engineers is wrong - trying to get a unit to build another unit doesnt work. basically each river hex should already have a pontoon bridge on it - as a hidden terrain feature - I know you can turn unit display on and off and in the design mode you can do the same with terrain features. Basically you add the pontoon ( hidden ) as an integral part of the river hex. All engineers are amphibious due to the assault boats that are an integral part of their unit train. if an engineer enters a river hexside the function needs to be the engineer unit goes invisible and the pontoon terrain feature appears. adjusting the stacking limits for the hex makes certain that heavier units cant cross the pontoons.

for that feature your engineer truck works just fine unload the truck at the waters edge and create a pontoon ferry that will be able to load heavier units and move them across the water. The only problem is the possibility of cheating - the permanent pontoons allow movement over water - so thatll have to be worked out. youll be able to rapidly move trucks and infantry across the water and slowly ferry armor over... and you can scrap those silly assault assault boats that flood the river crossing scenarios.

aaah I see your problem now =).... Your using the bridge column B which is a bit high powered for the game. It takes 6 hours on average to erect a 40 meter 16 ton bridge using the Bridge column B. Apparently dear Jason you forgot to look INSIDE the trucks... every truck you see towing those big pontoons is loaded to the gills with Rubber pontoons as well. they can slap out a 135 foot 10 ton bridge in less time.

The Bridge column B gives you 3 options: 1. is to build a straight bridge using the lumber and trestles that are on the trailers towed by the sdkfz's 2. is to build a 10 ton pontoon bridge from inflateable pontoons using sturmbootes to hold them in place ( inflateable boots will float away so you need motor boats with engines running to hold them in place ) 3. Is to build the 16 ton Bridge with the Big Pontoons using the M-Boot section thats attached and towed by sdkfz. the boat you guys use in the game ( crewed boats ) is the M-Boot and its the least common of all the boats in the Bridging column - its sole puorpose being to provide motive power to the large pontoons.

the next option is to form a ferry with either of the 2 elements and simply ferrying the stuff across. but thats time consuming.

the Bridge Column K is medium trucks loaded with Inflatable pontoons / girders and trestles and although not as frequently employed is more manegeable in game terms. Problem with using it is that its all paddles - theres no motors i think. bridge column D is the box girder units attached to the division - like tanks with bridge sections that fold out for small obstacles.

The way the bridge assault plays it is the sturm boots of the pioneer battalion go in first they are sometimes helped by the pontoon rafts. once the bridgehead is formed thesturm boots and rafts form ferries and light pontoon bridges. its only at this stage that the BRUKO B will arrive and start building the good stuff. they can get a 16 ton up in 6 hours and have it to 24 tons the next day.

One change that I hope can be made for 1.03 is that some Japanese units, such as MG sections and platoons can't be carried by Japanese tanks who are labeled as having the ability to carry troops. A little thing, but in the scenario I'm playing now, a little annoying.

BTW, thank you for all your efforts to make this game better; it means a lot to me and many others!

Japanese Nambo's were water cooled, ribbon fed monstrosities. I think the same applies to them as the russian Maxim. In addition the Japanese tanks didn't have a whole lot of surface area for transport. The Machine gun weighed in at 122 pounds unloaded. I dont think a 90 pound Japanese soldier is gonna be able to lug the thing up on a tank.

Type 92 Heavy Machine Gun: Type 92 refers to the Japanese-style year 2592, i.e. 1932. This is a heavy gun that was intended to be fired from a tripod that could be carried for short distances by three men. to top it off a 4 gun MG platoon had a total of 51 men ( 11 per gun ). including a 7 man ammunition squad. Are you SURE you want to put the thing on a tank ?

I guess I can accept that answer. Do you mean to tell me, though, that hitching a ride on some passing tanks just wasn't done by Japanese or Russian MG crews? Perhaps, in CS terms, it might mean it costs 50 AP to dismount as well as mount?

technically german gunners wouldnt have hitched either. you carry the gun, extra barrels, maintenancee equipment, tripods and around 2000 rounds of ammunition in a wheeled cart. MGs are touchy little beasts and dont like getting dirty. most of the time they were carried in carts - weve all seen the photos of the german gunners trudging along with mg 34 and mg 42s, but those were used in the lmg role for local suppressive fire. without the tripod you couldnt range the weapon. a short hop on a tank is all good but the machine guns could fire only a few short bursts before you had to switch barrels and ammo was an issue as well. I used to drive tanks and getting up on one with a mg isnt a picnic. securing the weapon and preventing damage while holding onto a slick/featurless surface with one hand is even harder. Tanks were specifically designed not to have any nooks and crannies to latch onto - those were called shot traps. surfaces were well sloped with no obstructions - the engine compartment was fairly flat but it was also the air intake.. you block it the tanks dies. In addition the tanks had 2-3 machine guns and much more ammo to support inf. tactically it doesnt make sense. All platoons had their own lmgs integral. their boys could and did ride tanks with the same mg 34 to support their teammates. An HMG platoon had a specific mission : provide longe range suppressive fire. if an at gun opened up on the tank an hmg could stop it. an hmg on the tank would be useless. remember the german lmg an hmg were the exact same weapon minus a tripod. an american units used the bar as lmg and the 50cal as hmg for instance ( hypothetical ) a bar team would ride a tank - its their job to support their platoon close up. but the 50 cals have 4 platoons as well as the tanks to protect. it would be negligent to get caught on atank when the shooting started.

OK Jason - Weekends over and I have to work - heres what Ive got so far - I'll do personal weapons and set up firepower etc for each unit type and lay out upgrades. thatll be done by wednesday. I've a solid idea on how to make he engineers work for you, once you look at this link you'll have a much better understanding. Once I get all the text in place you'll know more than you ever wanted to know. After this Ill do the Osttruppen for ya.

OK Jason - Weekends over and I have to work - heres what Ive got so far - I'll do personal weapons and set up firepower etc for each unit type and lay out upgrades. thatll be done by wednesday. I've a solid idea on how to make he engineers work for you, once you look at this link you'll have a much better understanding. Once I get all the text in place you'll know more than you ever wanted to know. After this Ill do the Osttruppen for ya.

technically german gunners wouldnt have hitched either. you carry the gun, extra barrels, maintenancee equipment, tripods and around 2000 rounds of ammunition in a wheeled cart. MGs are touchy little beasts and dont like getting dirty. most of the time they were carried in carts - weve all seen the photos of the german gunners trudging along with mg 34 and mg 42s, but those were used in the lmg role for local suppressive fire. without the tripod you couldnt range the weapon. a short hop on a tank is all good but the machine guns could fire only a few short bursts before you had to switch barrels and ammo was an issue as well. I used to drive tanks and getting up on one with a mg isnt a picnic. securing the weapon and preventing damage while holding onto a slick/featurless surface with one hand is even harder. Tanks were specifically designed not to have any nooks and crannies to latch onto - those were called shot traps. surfaces were well sloped with no obstructions - the engine compartment was fairly flat but it was also the air intake.. you block it the tanks dies. In addition the tanks had 2-3 machine guns and much more ammo to support inf. tactically it doesnt make sense. All platoons had their own lmgs integral. their boys could and did ride tanks with the same mg 34 to support their teammates. An HMG platoon had a specific mission : provide longe range suppressive fire. if an at gun opened up on the tank an hmg could stop it. an hmg on the tank would be useless. remember the german lmg an hmg were the exact same weapon minus a tripod. an american units used the bar as lmg and the 50cal as hmg for instance ( hypothetical ) a bar team would ride a tank - its their job to support their platoon close up. but the 50 cals have 4 platoons as well as the tanks to protect. it would be negligent to get caught on atank when the shooting started.

Hmmmm...not sure I agree with you on all of this. I also was a tanker back in the late 60s and I DO agree it is a real trick climbing up on one BY YOURSELF WITH NO ASSISTANCE. I drove and was gunner for a US M-60 tank. That model is VERY tall. However, a machinegunner is not a 1-man job. I am sure someone trying to hoist an MG42 up on a tank would get assistance from other members of his squad/unit or even from one of the tankers. So it's not all that difficult to get one up there. We had to haul up .50 caliber and .30 caliber guns every time we took our tank out. We managed just fine. I agree that MGs are pretty sensitive to dirt and crud. But they are NOT delicate timepieces. Also, "a few short bursts" before changing a barrel???? I don't think so. Even at the exceptionally high rate of fire of the MG42, they can fire more than a few short bursts. I think if the tank or armored vehicle was going anywhwere near the location the machinegun was going to be located at, the machinegun would most definitely hitch a ride rather than walk. Tanks also have a reputation for not staying in one place for very long. Remaining stationary is just asking for an anti-tank round to blow it away. So the Infantry couldn't depend on a tank to "hang around" to give machinegun covering fire with it's coax guns while the Infantry decided when to attack.

I was 19Echo through bootcamp - M60a3, got to fort bliss - 3rd ACR and went to M60a1 until we could find some jarheads dumb enough to take em off our hands then transitioned to M1a1. Our current tanks are a whole different creature than WW2 tanks - especially Japanese. I still have m240 lugging flashbacks. to keep that bad boy from tapping the tank while holding on for dear life with 1 hand seems tricky. And the key here is that inf going forward on tanks is moving up to hold ground.. theres not room for the whole mg crew - again they would be far more valuable 400 yards back with a tripod an a few cases of ammo and 2-3 extra barrels.

I was 19Echo through bootcamp - M60a3, got to fort bliss - 3rd ACR and went to M60a1 until we could find some jarheads dumb enough to take em off our hands then transitioned to M1a1. Our current tanks are a whole different creature than WW2 tanks - especially Japanese. I still have m240 lugging flashbacks. to keep that bad boy from tapping the tank while holding on for dear life with 1 hand seems tricky. And the key here is that inf going forward on tanks is moving up to hold ground.. theres not room for the whole mg crew - again they would be far more valuable 400 yards back with a tripod an a few cases of ammo and 2-3 extra barrels.

I was in the 3ACR from July 69-September 70 (I troop, 3/3). Got out in 1970. How big is an MG42 crew??? More than 2 men???? I was 11Echo, changed from 11C.

works out to 9 men 4 horses and a wagon per heavy machine gun - varied along those lines. B/1/3 - Ooh ah ah.

Good grief!!! Yeah....I don't think that many people are gonna load on ONE tank. And lifting the horses on the tank MIGHT be a bit difficult Were you a Nam vet that got assigned to 3ACR after your tour? That's what I was. We had lots of them there in late 69-early 70.

naw im only 42 - got alerted for Grenada and couldn't re-up in time to catch Gulf 1 =(...

Jason - I updated the text - thats all for tonite. Tomorrow Ill, do Panzer, SS, LW GSD and Lehr. Ive alot more detail to put in but I broke down all the Barbarossa battalions for you. I need to explain how it all works.

Army group south had a lot of captured bridging material so its tougher to dig through but almost all the divisions were Bruko B or Bruko 35 (captured ). Army Group center was Bruko B for motorised but Heinricis XXXXIII corps was chock full of Bruko T ( Bruko T being the Bridge colums for Horse drawn vehicles ) and the Bruko D formations were concentrated there as well. Army Group North had the majority of the Bruko K trestle columns. Finnland had the Bruko A ( gebirgs )

Im going to sort out which units were in the east and work out some percents.

Interesting note is the relative rarity of Anything but Bruko T in the Infantry corps, the concentration of Bruko A in arctic zones and Bruko K in Army Group Nord. The Bridge column we all know an fear s the Bruko B with the huge Pontoons. Bruko K was entirely carried in Medium trucks with no trailers. nothing but Small pontoons and the girders. HGN had the 38t and 35t tanks (all light ) which is why the column K were there I think. Pay special attention to the Motorised Infantry divisions - the Engineer Battalions were light - they had no MG or Mortar squads - just engineers.

and remember the columns were just that - no integral engineers - they were simply trucks and drivers - there were depot units that stocked the gear and the trucks just moved em. ingame engineers are really limited to the light and medium pontoon and assault boat function of the organic engineer column units, but a combination of that and the heavy pontoons, motorboats and the bridging material of the bridging columns will get temp bridges up, stay focused on the ferrying aspect and we can get the engineers humming.

works out to 9 men 4 horses and a wagon per heavy machine gun - varied along those lines. B/1/3 - Ooh ah ah.

Good grief!!! Yeah....I don't think that many people are gonna load on ONE tank. And lifting the horses on the tank MIGHT be a bit difficult Were you a Nam vet that got assigned to 3ACR after your tour? That's what I was. We had lots of them there in late 69-early 70.

works out to 9 men 4 horses and a wagon per heavy machine gun - varied along those lines. B/1/3 - Ooh ah ah.

Good grief!!! Yeah....I don't think that many people are gonna load on ONE tank. And lifting the horses on the tank MIGHT be a bit difficult Were you a Nam vet that got assigned to 3ACR after your tour? That's what I was. We had lots of them there in late 69-early 70.

The avrage Gun Crew for a "Heavy" MG 34/42 would be around 5 to 7 men, 7-10 men if you want to inclued other personel this is for a single gun mind you.

KStN 131n (1.5.1944) -Infantry company ToE durring may 1944, lists 18 men serving the Heavy MG section of two MG42s, it is as fallows.

Well here's an Idea, how about Artillery based off how they where used in WW2? Or better put based of each country doctrines.

Some examples British: had a fast response time but was relatively inaccurate (five min response time) US: fast response time and fairly accurate (Similer to the British in response times) German: fairly accurate but slow response time (~12 min) Soviet: slow to respond and low in accuracy much of there fire was preplanned This ofcorse would apply primarily to artillery and not mortars In short the US and British would have their artillery impact every turn where as German and soviet (and other countries) every other turn.

Well here's an Idea, how about Artillery based off how they where used in WW2? Or better put based of each country doctrines.

Some examples British: had a fast response time but was relatively inaccurate (five min response time) US: fast response time and fairly accurate (Similer to the British in response times) German: fairly accurate but slow response time (~12 min) Soviet: slow to respond and low in accuracy much of there fire was preplanned This ofcorse would apply primarily to artillery and not mortars In short the US and British would have their artillery impact every turn where as German and soviet (and other countries) every other turn.

The easiest way to represent this is by setting the base ammo levels for the countries appropriately in the scenario editor when designing new scenarios.

Given your examples above, having the base ammo level of 85 for the Americans and 50 for the Germans would provide an artillery bombardment rate that you are describing.

not too sure i agree with the asessment. and it doesnt fit in with the 15 minute per turn thingamajig. One of the most glaring fallacies of the campaign series is the poor handling of artillery - especially as in regards the AI. British Artillery, until the introduction of American Arms could be regarded as somewhere below pathetic, bordering on criminal, only slightly better than that of Japan. the 25 pounder was a solid gun, thank God and air supremacy made up for most of the glaring weaknesses. German Artillery ranked a close third in performance just below that of Italy and got worse as the war progressed. American Artillery was the best in the world in terms of material, with the Russians close behind.

Japanese Artillery averaged under 4000 meters even including the 100mm Inf Support stuff. Heavy artillery could push 12000 meters max. Japanese equipment was not used like other armies. Basically light interdiction and fire for effect were the only missions. Japanese Artillery observers and radio communications were very primitive and there was no air coordination, they did use ballon observers as well. Japan had an annoying tendency to zero in their artillery in daylight prior to an attack which was kind of like sending a postcard. One of its most glaring weaknesses was its inability to provide immediate support ( 6-12 hour response time ) and its complete inability to engage in counterbattery actions - in this regard with its poor range that was entirely out of the question anyhow.

British Artillery was antquated to say the least. Command and control initially was the observer/battery signal line followed by corrected fire. One of the weaknesses was the susceptebility of this means to disruption. They did have massive stocks of dated ammunition to go with their vintage guns so they changed to to grid saturation system - no accuracy but large amounts of ordnance in the general target area controlled by radio and air observation. This really didnt do much to stop enemy attacks but it kept the bad guys heads down and the response time was excellent - being more of a morale consideration than effective artillery control - this was reflected as well in their area bombing strategy.

Italian Artillery was cumbersome but it had effective range and was fairly accurate.

German artillery was heavy and had short range - the german battery/observer connection used both radio and field cables and was painstakingly accurate. The germans had serious ammo problems which worked well with their control system which allowed targeting multiple batteries on pinpoint targets. The 12 minute response time was long but the results were almost always complete destruction of the target rather than suppression. Problem being that german artillery was outranged by nearly all contemporary armies making it susceptible to counterbattery and was difficult to relocate - especially the larger and horsedrawn guns.

Soviet artillery was poorly spotted and to a great degree pre-plotted - given the unique circumstances of the russian front this wasnt really a problem due to the sheer weight of artillery that could be brought to bear. the guns had excellent range, were lightweight, simple to manufacture and maintain and were very succesful despite the poor fire control.

American artillery had the advantage of light weight, mobility, range, a system of mixed coordination ivolving grid and also radio control, mountains of ammunition and air spotting as well. They could saturate like the british with the same pinpoint accuracy of the germans and the range and ammo of the russians.

what this means in game terms is that the Japanese would have a much larger chance of being hit by counterbattery. one way to simulate this is to place a counterbattery button on the fire options and if a gun fires within the counterbattery guns fire range - bad things could happen. Japanese artillery would need a longer setup time - increase the fire cost.

British artillery is much more likely to have no effect or disrupt - so reduce the firepower and the fire cost to 33 so it can fire 3 times and raise availability.

Italian artillery can be kept the same but increase load/unload cost

German Artillery needs to have its firepower raised and availability decreased

russian artillery needs full availabity but a weakening of firepower and a larger spread.

German artilery is not exactly short ranged, vs western weapons they have a decent range though the heavyer guns are a bit out ranged but the 105mm's have a decent range. vs the soviets however then you see a diffrent story. the 105mms are decent but the 150mms are notabley short ranged.

I would like to see a 'medium' animations speed option instead of the default very slow speed or the 'fast' option which is way too fast and does not allow easy observation of the firing and movement animations as they play too quickly on the 'fast' setting. Just a fraction slower would be great.

There was a very old PC game (I think called "Tigers in the snow") that allowed this for both sides. It was a fantastic feature and made for a lot of fun and great variablity. Would be great for PBEM play.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Krec

I would like to puchase/select units i would like to battle with in the random game ie: SPWAW where you get to buy yor force . this would add a great aspect to the game that doesnt exist as currently designed. the scenarios are great but random battles against a human bought force would make the replay value great. of course someone would have to come up with the pricing of units aka the speadsheet from hell in SP. Just a wish

I agree that the ability of a player to purchase/select units in a "Generate Scenario" game would add greatly to the enjoyment factor. Most of the time I'm not real happy with what the computer throws at me.